New Star Trek Movie

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 11:31 PM GMT
    OK, I 99% of the time am annoyed by remakes and extensions on movies that have already been made. HOWEVER, seeing the trailer has intrigued me. THE QUESTION: I am not a "Treckie" and am wondering how authentic it will be to the original storyline and creativity...Opinions of those who are apart of the following?

    'Star Trek' Trailer
    'Star Trek' Trailer
  • mustangd

    Posts: 434

    May 18, 2013 5:02 PM GMT
    just saw the new movie last night, due to the timing, my only option was 3D, my first 3D movie. having to wear the glasses is not an ideal medium, still i have to say, it was an enjoyable movie experience. don't go if you are expecting a well developed script and character development. also, its in large part based on your knowing the characters, and the "in" story lines. i thought it was a bit loud, but, all in all, if you are a fan of the genre, like sci-fi in general, and don't mind looking at handsome guys, go see it. to answer your question, the movie spins off the original series, spins some previous storylines 180 degrees, from both the original series, and the later movies. i felt someone sat down, and tried to analyze what fans enjoyed in the past in previous movies and the series, and tried to put that in this move, and then, figuratively and literally, amp up the volume. some great scenes, i spent most of the movie looking in every corner of the screen, there is plenty to see.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2013 5:05 PM GMT
    I saw the new one yesterday it was pretty good

    icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2013 6:52 PM GMT
    Dam fckn queer . Pork and cell phones equals this new cast of freaks
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    May 18, 2013 6:53 PM GMT
    Homesteaders saidDam fckn queer . Pork and cell phones equals this new cast of freaks


    It's a gay movie???? Hmm, I didn't realize that. Thanks for letting me know!!icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2013 7:31 PM GMT
    The movie is a fun ride, but I didn't enjoy it as much as the last one. Also, it is pretty easy to tear all sorts of holes into the script once you start analyzing it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2013 7:32 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Homesteaders saidDam fckn queer . Pork and cell phones equals this new cast of freaks


    It's a gay movie???? Hmm, I didn't realize that. Thanks for letting me know!!icon_smile.gif


    Well, Spock & Kirk sure do seem to have something for each other. So... maybe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 1:45 AM GMT
    I don't feel it was a money-waster for a Memorial Day Weekend 2013 movie. I wonder if there were 2,500 people listed in the credits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 1:50 AM GMT
    Its an excellent film. For Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 2:16 AM GMT
    What sex are they !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 2:48 AM GMT
    No philosophizing or profound themes explored. It's an action pic with lots of gunfights and brawlin'. Gene Roddenberry was forced to turn his second "Star Trek" pilot into practically a western, pitching it to the networks who turned down his first as "too cerebral" or some such as "Wagon Train to the Stars." That's what this J.J. Abrams sequel felt like. Entertaining? YES. Thought-provoking? No.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 3:02 AM GMT
    Just saw it again today for the second time (this time in IMAX)! I thoroughly enjoyed it, as well as the previous reboot of the series. It's very action packed and suspenseful, and has some good character moments. Still liked the first one better but oh well. I'd say it's still worth seeing. But then again, I'm not a Trekie, so.

    Also how could you say no to two hours of Chris Pine? icon_cool.gif

    list-farm-team-hollywood-reporter-2010-c

    EDIT: Holy smokes! Talk about an old thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 6:13 PM GMT
    lol.. the original post was asking about the previous movie.. anyway...

    eagermuscle said Gene Roddenberry was forced to turn his second "Star Trek" pilot into practically a western, pitching it to the networks who turned down his first as "too cerebral" or some such as "Wagon Train to the Stars." .

    If I remember correctly it was the other way around. The network didnt approve the original pilot because of 2 main reasons

    #1 They (Enterprise) went as conquerors and the network wasnt happy with all that violence. Hence Gene changed the main purpose to "We come in peace".

    #2 Mr.Spock was to be played by a black actor. In 1967 a main tv charecter played by a black actor wasnt gonna happen. Hence Gene had to recast the show. Who knows maybe the black actor would have made a great Spock. But Leonard Nimoy did an outstanding job, IMO.

    This new movie (Into Darkness) was denied as a remake of "Wrath of Khan" (second movie of the original movies). But it actually is a remake of that movies concept with some parallel changes (e.g. in this movie spock screams Khan vs the original where Kirk screams Khan ). I like Benedict Cumberbatch he is a good actor and I'd do him ..lol.. but i didnt think he made a very menacing Khan. The movie is good though, plenty of action from the very beginning and right through the movie. Never really a dull moment. Worth watching.
  • dommyinlosang...

    Posts: 261

    May 27, 2013 6:29 PM GMT
    it's not authentic because

    1) in the first film... timetravel and an evil bad guy changed history... so this is a different timeline than the original series (if you saw back to the future part 2 you know what i mean) so different events can and do happen. it's not a reboot... it's a continuous loop in a way since the original spock from the 60s is actually in this new timeline in the past becasue he traveled back in time as well. so there is old spock from the original timeline stuck here with the new young spock in the altered timeline.
    2) also this predates the original series so the characters are a bit younger and inexperienced.
    3) the writers are complete trek fans and know the history and are being very loyal to the characters and how they would act. as loyal as you can be while trying to create your own thing.

    remember the original series was just a 3 year run. almost got canned year 2. there was no overriding thought to a 50 year run lol... the trek thing is a non organized continuous stream of "lets make more" with different writers directors and producers guiding it all... jj abrahms is just the latest. it's amazing it's stayed as connected to it's own history as long as it has.

    movie was fantastic by the way... just saw it a second time. crowd applauded at the end both times.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 6:56 PM GMT
    dvsinla saidit's not authentic because

    1) in the first film... timetravel and an evil bad guy changed history... so this is a different timeline than the original series (if you saw back to the future part 2 you know what i mean) so different events can and do happen. it's not a reboot... it's a continuous loop in a way since the original spock from the 60s is actually in this new timeline in the past becasue he traveled back in time as well. so there is old spock from the original timeline stuck here with the new young spock in the altered timeline.

    In the previous movie it's concept of time was explained as "what has happened, has happened and a timeline cannot be altered. A new timeline is created". So in the previous movie the evil bad guys hasn't changed history. He created new history in a new timeline.

    Spock has lived in the previous timeline and has crossed over and now lives in the new timeline.

    It is a reboot in that the origins of the Enterprise and its crew coming together are explained. But it isnt a remake of the original movies, hence the differences also given the 'new timeline' explanation ("there are too many variables" as explained in the previous movie) icon_razz.gif

  • dommyinlosang...

    Posts: 261

    May 27, 2013 8:31 PM GMT
    TellMeMoar said
    dvsinla saidit's not authentic because

    1) in the first film... timetravel and an evil bad guy changed history... so this is a different timeline than the original series (if you saw back to the future part 2 you know what i mean) so different events can and do happen. it's not a reboot... it's a continuous loop in a way since the original spock from the 60s is actually in this new timeline in the past becasue he traveled back in time as well. so there is old spock from the original timeline stuck here with the new young spock in the altered timeline.

    In the previous movie it's concept of time was explained as "what has happened, has happened and a timeline cannot be altered. A new timeline is created". So in the previous movie the evil bad guys hasn't changed history. He created new history in a new timeline.

    Spock has lived in the previous timeline and has crossed over and now lives in the new timeline.

    It is a reboot in that the origins of the Enterprise and its crew coming together are explained. But it isnt a remake of the original movies, hence the differences also given the 'new timeline' explanation ("there are too many variables" as explained in the previous movie) icon_razz.gif



    i agree but isn't that what i said just with different words? lol... spock is like marty mcfly in altered 1985... now since christopher lloyd is in star trek search for spock and probably still around in this different timeline maybe he can find that delorean and go back... but he would have to first go back to before the bad romulan changed things... then once he did he could go forward... i think
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 8:35 PM GMT
    TellMeMoar saidlol.. the original post was asking about the previous movie.. anyway...

    eagermuscle said Gene Roddenberry was forced to turn his second "Star Trek" pilot into practically a western, pitching it to the networks who turned down his first as "too cerebral" or some such as "Wagon Train to the Stars." .

    If I remember correctly it was the other way around. The network didnt approve the original pilot because of 2 main reasons

    #1 They (Enterprise) went as conquerors and the network wasnt happy with all that violence. Hence Gene changed the main purpose to "We come in peace".

    #2 Mr.Spock was to be played by a black actor. In 1967 a main tv charecter played by a black actor wasnt gonna happen. Hence Gene had to recast the show. Who knows maybe the black actor would have made a great Spock. But Leonard Nimoy did an outstanding job, IMO.

    That's some interesting backstory I wasn't aware of.

    I was referring to filmed pilots; perhaps you were referencing original scripts or story outlines.

    The first was "The Cage," filmed in '65 or '66 and later edited into the two part episode "The Menagerie," both with the Christopher Pike character and Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock with Roddenberry's first wife (mistress at the time, he also dated Nichelle Nichols) as "Number One." Because of objections to having a woman play second in command Spock was recast not only as the Science Officer but Number One and took on Number One's emotionless qualities (I don't think the "Number One" title was referenced again until Star Trek-The Next Generation). The pilot was deemed too cerebral, intelligent, etc. Here's a clip of the rejected filmed pilot with an all-white cast; it's a bit erratic but you get the idea, and def check out the awesome opening pan of the saucer exterior into the bridge:



    The second pilot that the network picked up (second pilots were unheard of at the time) was called "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and starred the '60s cast we're familiar with and Sally Kellerman (who'd appeared in an "Outer Limits" episode a few years before). Instead of "The Cage" where Christopher Pike fought mainly with his mind, "Where No Man" had Kirk fistfighting and brawling with his male guest co-star - that better fit the TV Western mold of the time and indeed, Roddenberry did pitch it to the networks as "Wagon Train to the Stars."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 8:51 PM GMT
    dvsinla said
    i agree but isn't that what i said just with different words? lol... spock is like marty mcfly in altered 1985...


    Not the same. Marty went back in time to do something to alter his future. Spock cannot change his future (what "has happened, has happened", remember). Old Spock is in an alternate reality of a new timeline.

    So...
    Marty = in his timeline changes past to alter his future
    Spock = in a different (alternate) timeline and cant change the life he has already lived

    dvsinla said
    now since christopher lloyd is in star trek search for spock and probably still around in this different timeline maybe he can find that delorean and go back... but he would have to first go back to before the bad romulan changed things... then once he did he could go forward... i think

    That cant happen either

    ".....However, this is the first film in which there is not a return to the future. The major changes brought about by Nero and Spock's trip to the past stay changed, causing an alternative timeline, one that will play out differently from what had been seen in the original series. "

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/faq

    icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 9:04 PM GMT
    eagermuscle saidI was referring to filmed pilots; perhaps you were referencing original scripts or story outlines.

    I guess I was. I cant remember if that article said that the pilot i referenced was ever created.


    Found some info from here: http://www.ibiblio.org/jwsnyder/wisdom/trek.html
    "... Roddenberry had originally wanted to cast a black man in Spock's role..."

    Perhaps what I referenced was when Gene was pitching the show to the network.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 9:33 PM GMT
    before I lay out a $20 spot to see it ---

    --- is the plot as shitty and full of OMFG LENS FLARE!!1!! every sixth frame like the first movie in this reboot was?
  • dommyinlosang...

    Posts: 261

    May 27, 2013 10:30 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidbefore I lay out a $20 spot to see it ---

    --- is the plot as shitty and full of OMFG LENS FLARE!!1!! every sixth frame like the first movie in this reboot was?


    if the great reviews and fan reaction is not enough at this point i suggest you skip it...
  • dommyinlosang...

    Posts: 261

    May 27, 2013 10:39 PM GMT
    TellMeMoar said
    dvsinla said
    i agree but isn't that what i said just with different words? lol... spock is like marty mcfly in altered 1985...


    Not the same. Marty went back in time to do something to alter his future. Spock cannot change his future (what "has happened, has happened", remember). Old Spock is in an alternate reality of a new timeline.

    So...
    Marty = in his timeline changes past to alter his future
    Spock = in a different (alternate) timeline and cant change the life he has already lived

    dvsinla said
    now since christopher lloyd is in star trek search for spock and probably still around in this different timeline maybe he can find that delorean and go back... but he would have to first go back to before the bad romulan changed things... then once he did he could go forward... i think

    That cant happen either

    ".....However, this is the first film in which there is not a return to the future. The major changes brought about by Nero and Spock's trip to the past stay changed, causing an alternative timeline, one that will play out differently from what had been seen in the original series. "

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/faq

    icon_cool.gif



    nononono... in back to the future 2 biff goes back in time and alters the past creating an alternative timeline... once in that timeline any time travel inside of it moves you within the altered timeline... unless you went before the timeline was altered....the only way for them to set things right was to stop old biff... 2 timelines in both instances... spock could change more history by stopping nero or going even further back and doing to nero what nero tried to do with kirk... or he can just chill out in the new timeline and invest in stocks he knows that are going to take off

    either way he should at least tell earth to invest in some hump backed whales cuz the events in trek 234 are now going to be severely altered and they might not be in position to do all that whale shopping
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 10:46 PM GMT
    The story of this remake is not like the original not that I am a fan of the original but the original is way better than this one.
  • dommyinlosang...

    Posts: 261

    May 27, 2013 10:58 PM GMT
    manny2 saidThe story of this remake is not like the original not that I am a fan of the original but the original is way better than this one.


    its not a remake... what story are you referring to? space seed?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2013 11:03 PM GMT
    Its too soon for me to say if the 2013 movie is as better or worse than the one from 2009. But it has many elements, especially references and quotes from previous franchise footage, that worked extremely well. The characters are captured well, though they are all on steroids. Scotty's personality is scottyX2. Chekov sounds substantially more Russian than any Russian I know. Uhura the brave female is even braver. An so forth. The film should definitely be seen in IMAX. Don't try to save $2 by seeing it in a regular theatre. Its quite the fun ride and emotional too. The intense love between Kirk and Spock is on full display. If you haven't seen the 2009 film, rent it first, as it fills in missing pieces in the story line. Am hoping that the next one is a tad more conceptual, exploring more fully a classic Trek theme like what it means to be human.